Mick,
Thank you for your generally addressed response. There are a few matters
which I feel you addressed and a few I feel you touched on perhaps too
'lightly'. I personally have been involved in HE support for 8 years in
various roles in various establishments and believe I have a clear
understanding of most of the issues (but won't pretend to know them all).
So I don't particularly consider myself here as 'out of depth'.

1) I stand corrected if your interpretation of 'generic' is that of
applying to assessors who have expertise in certain fields (so the 'cloud'
and the 'cuckoo' can be despatched with).

2) My concern about the 'sausage machine' production line is with reference
to those who carry out assessments as part of a much wider remit that may
include screenings, advice clinics, staff development, policy development,
liasing with staff, external agencies, etc.. I was concerned that the
40/60 quota would apply in these cases. At the same time I am well aware
that a full time assessor could do at least 120 per year and I wouldn't be
surprised if there are those that aim for the 200 mark.

3) Experience is an important consideration - but I would argue that an
assessor who has carried out, say, 15 assessments a year, who has addressed
the issues and has actually thought about articulating them (perhaps in
more accurate ways than those provided by template options), and who has
liaised with academic departments, Disability Advisers, etc - has the kind
of experience that is insightful and formative rather than template-editing
'fit-to-the-frame' experience that many with higher quotas would have to
resort to.

4) My reference to the inter-disciplinary (rather than multi-) approach
relates to those students with complex needs. I agree it's true that the
student is often not comfortable with more than one assessor but, overall,
I rather think that the reason this approach is not promoted is more down
to time and cost.

5) I agree that there are no definitive answers to these problems and
welcome attempts that have been made 'to create a system that better serves
the interests of the students' (for the 'student' body there is no doubt)
and that the guidelines won't necessarily be fixed and will be subject to
review.

However, I do have a concern about the new system being the old one with a
load of bolt-ons. I hope time and the positive experiences of students will
prove me wrong. I know the chances of root and branch change are zilch and
impractical in any case as there are too many established interests at
stake - honourable perhaps but 'assessment-industry'-driven also
(hopefully more the former).

I just hope that the Quality Assurance Group is not really about quantity
assurance (excuse the Q/Q cliché) and that the DfES?LEAs will have more
confidence in the system.

Finally, I know there are may be a number of people who consider themselves
to be 'in the know' in this field and that these people may have persuaded
others from the DfES through to the many newcomers over recent years that
this is the case. I don't necessarily doubt this wisdom, but I do feel the
more transparency there is the better - especially in the light of the
rapid expansion that has and is still taking place. Informed responses such
as yours are welcome and the idea of a website for quality assurance is
encouraging. Also useful is:
www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/uploads/DSAQA_terms_of_ref_web_version.doc
I would also hope that the guidelines regarding an assessor’s suitability
apply also to members of groups such as QAG… That is ‘…excluding those with
vested interests and tightening up potential for exploiting the scheme.’ As
long as we all follow these principles we have nothing to worry about. (see
Point 11, Minutes of meeting held on 11 November 2002 – see
www.dfes.gov.uk/studentsupport/uploads/DSA_minutes_11nov2002.doc)

Rob


Michael Trott writes:

> Just a few points to clarify that may help people understand the issues
> involved.
>
> There is no intention to create 'generic' assessors but *some* people feel
> that *some* assessors 'cherry pick' (NOT my term) and only do dyslexia
> assessments, leaving those with other disabilities uncatered for in some
> areas.
> It has been suggested that assessors be encouraged to broaden their skills
> through appropriate training.
>
> Personally, I think that there is scope for 'specialist' assessors although
> there are arguments in favour of building on existing skills and again
> arguments for not pressing assessors to take on areas of assessment in which
> they feel they have limited expertise.
>
> It has also been suggested that assessors will be licensed for each area of
> disability (excuse the shorthand) in which they have expertise E.g. VI, HI,
> Physical, learning disabilities, mental health - quite the opposite of
> 'generic' if I understand your use of the term correctly.
>
> The figures suggested to maintain registration as an assessor are a minimum
> of 25 per year or 40 over 2 years but 40 to 60 a year is not a lot for full
> time assessors. (35 hours per week, billing 9 hours per assessment gives 3 to
> 4 assessments per week (or 120 + per year) and allows time for training,
> updating skills, admin etc.
>
> An alternative view to the '60 a year is a sausage factory' is that if an
> assessor only does a few assessments a year they do not maintain enough
> experience etc. (not necessarily a view I agree with but I doubt if anyone
> would argue that the more you do the more experience you gain).
>
> On the other hand, there are many experienced assessors that might be happy
> to cut back on their workload and perhaps do fewer but more complex
> assessments - students with multiple disabilities or cases where previous
> assessments have not been entirely successful (and this can be for many
> reasons).
>
> As for 'multi-disciplinary' approach. It has merits but I have met many
> students who would be uncomfortable with more than one assessor in the room
> or with 'serial assessments'.
>
> In short, there are no definitive answers to these problems. I don't think
> that the round table discussions took place in cloud cookoo land. There are
> representatives from all the parties involved at the discussions and it is
> not only the views of assessors taken into consideration. I can't say that I
> am entirely happy with all the recommendations but I do feel that there has
> been an attempt to create a system that better serves the interests of the
> students. However, the guidelines are not going to be set in stone. The
> Quality Assurance Group will apparently have a continuing remit to monitor
> the system and recommend changes. An important end result should be that DfES
> have more confidence in the system which may result in them being more more
> willing to listen to suggestions for funding some of those areas such as the
> inadequacy of the NMH for funding the full cost of Interpreters and note
> takers for HI students.
>
> Hope that allays a few concerns.
>
> Mick Trott